• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Close to everyone here has been asking you for sources. If you’re going to provide numbers, you need to provide sources. People like @[email protected] have given you large, well-sourced and thoroughly documented comments, if you respond with “sources” like “it’s widely known” people are going to rightfully dismiss your claims.

    • bitofarambler@crazypeople.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 days ago

      there have been a lot of questions, I’ve supplied sources to the direct questions.

      you may have missed them in the flurry of comments.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        10 days ago

        In this entire thread, you’ve provided a podcast from The Economist, a British Propaganda outlet explicitly promoting free-market liberalism and demonizing any country that goes against Western Hegemony, not just China. You should slow down and actually respond to comments, if you can’t dignify questions with a proper response, then you can just not respond. Refraining from speaking on a subject you know less about is better than digging a deeper hole for yourself.

        • bitofarambler@crazypeople.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          10 days ago

          I’m responding to all of your comments.

          you are asserting that basic facts and interviews are propaganda.

          I don’t see facts that way.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            I repeat, it is better to not respond at all than it is to give a half-assed response. If your goal is to change people’s minds or show onlookers better arguments, providing weak and unsubstantial, unsourced arguments hurts both of those goals. Again, it is okay to not speak on subjects you aren’t educated on. Maybe use it as an opportunity to learn more yourself.

            You haven’t sourced any of your “facts,” while you’ve been given many sources countering your claims. Extreme claims, such as claims of genocide, require proper evidence and sourcing, not just gesturing. Linking a podcast from a British propaganda outlet isn’t going to cut it, not only can people say quite literally whatever they want to in an interview, but podcasts are a time commitment when articles and direct sources can be parsed much quicker and more effectively.

            I suggest you take a break, find some actual sources, and if you can’t, concede and use it as an opportunity for growth.

            • bitofarambler@crazypeople.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              that’s why I’m providing corroborated, firsthand sources.

              they’re probably in the other comments if you haven’t seen them yet.

              if you need other sources for something specific in one of my comments, let me know.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                ·
                10 days ago

                You provided a single podcast from a British propaganda outlet. Why not link the sources the podcast references, unless there are none? Is the podcast just a testemonial from 2 people, or does it contain a list of genuine sources that you can pull from?

                Every other figure you’ve provided has gone unsourced, either you “heard it yourself” or claim it’s “from the government” without linking to the documents or statements these numbers must have come from, if you didn’t make them up.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    21
                    ·
                    10 days ago

                    Alright, let’s walk through this.

                    1. There are numbers you can and should source properly of people in the Uyghur re-education program. You need to link these numbers if you wish to use them as a source.

                    2. You doubt that the numbers are accurate. You need to provide meaningful evidence to support why you are skeptical, and provide evidence supporting higher numbers.

                    3. You have the idea of the Chinese government being accused of fabrication a lot. By who, though, for what reasons, and with which evidence?

                    Do you see my point, here? Rather than having 20 conversations with no merit whatsoever due to lack of sourcing, why not pick one or two conversations and try to honestly engage with them, sourcing every argument, and refraining from speculation without accompanying sources for such speculation?